Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- MLA
- Ms Joanne Bunting
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563161
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am grateful to the Member for giving way. We have debated this at length, and I was very clear when I spoke as Chair of the Committee and as an individual Member that we are coming to the Bill with the best of intentions: to produce an Act that has been through the proper processes and has been effectively scrutinised. We will do that in as generous and as constructive a way that we can. I have been very clear about that, and the remarks that I made as Chair were made on behalf of the entire Committee. We stated our concern from the outset — it has been an ongoing issue — and we met the Minister to discuss the matter. The Minister is well aware of our views, and it would be inherently wrong to move through Second Stage without voicing the Committee's concerns. I have put on record that the Committee intends to work constructively through the issues as best it can and to collaborate with the Department for the betterment of justice and better law. How many more times does it need to be said?
Will the Member give way?
The reason why I did not specify that is that, thus far, the Committee has neither had a conversation about it nor made its decision. Until such times as the Committee has a comprehensive conversation about how it wishes to proceed, I will not stand up and make remarks on behalf of the Committee when I do not know the Committee's position.
Will the Member give way?
262 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.16 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.